Ethereum stands as one of the most influential blockchains ever created. It pioneered programmable money, laid the foundation for decentralized finance, and continues to host the most secure and widely trusted smart contracts in the crypto ecosystem.
By traditional benchmarks, Ethereum’s leadership appears unchallenged. It maintains the largest developer community, commands the deepest pool of locked capital, and serves as the primary settlement layer for regulated stablecoins used across global markets.
Yet technological decline rarely happens in dramatic fashion. More often, relevance erodes gradually hidden behind indicators that reflect past success rather than future direction.
Within Ethereum circles, the phrase “TVL still matters” has become emblematic of this tension. While Total Value Locked once signaled growth and adoption, it increasingly reflects capital sitting idle as collateral rather than funds actively circulating through the economy.
The concern now is not whether Ethereum remains important today, but whether relying on legacy metrics blinds the ecosystem to shifting economic momentum elsewhere. That question whether these shifts matter by 2030 has become central to the broader industry debate.
Diverging Signals in the Data
The long-dormant “flippening” discussion has resurfaced, this time driven less by market capitalization and more by usage and revenue patterns.
According to Nansen data, Ethereum’s annualized protocol revenue has fallen roughly 76% year over year, declining to approximately $604 million. This drop followed the rollout of the Dencun and Fusaka upgrades, which significantly reduced the fees paid by Layer 2 networks for data availability.
By contrast, Solana generated about $657 million over the same period, while TRON earned nearly $601 million, largely fueled by high stablecoin activity in emerging markets.
User-focused metrics paint an even sharper contrast. Data from Artemis, which tracks behavioral activity rather than locked capital, shows that in 2025 Solana processed roughly 98 million monthly active users and facilitated around 34 billion transactions outpacing Ethereum across nearly all high-frequency categories.
Alex Svanevik, CEO of Nansen, has cautioned against dismissing these indicators. He argues that ignoring unfavorable data in favor of TVL risks fostering complacency, warning that Ethereum must remain “paranoid” even while headline metrics appear strong.
In his view, the challenge is not simply competition from other chains, but the temptation to defend leadership using metrics that may lose relevance as crypto’s core use cases evolve.
Volume Versus Value
However, a complete assessment requires nuance. While Solana clearly dominates transaction volume, Ethereum is engaged in a different contest one centered on economic density.
A meaningful share of Solana’s transaction count consists of arbitrage bots, automated activity, and consensus-related messaging. These interactions drive massive throughput but may generate less economic value per byte than Ethereum’s settlement-heavy transactions, which often involve higher-stakes financial flows.
As a result, the ecosystem appears to be splitting into distinct roles. Solana is increasingly viewed as a high-speed execution layer akin to a technology-heavy trading venue while Ethereum functions more like a global settlement network, prioritizing security and finality.
The Deeper Risk: Lost Urgency
Still, dismissing competing chains as “low-value volume” may obscure a deeper issue. The real threat to Ethereum is not merely user migration, but the erosion of urgency that once drove rapid innovation.
Kyle Samani, managing partner at Multicoin Capital, has previously reflected on his departure from the Ethereum ecosystem, tracing his shift in conviction back to Devcon3 in Cancun in late 2017.
At the time, Ethereum had become the fastest asset ever to reach a $100 billion market capitalization. Network fees were surging, demand was exploding, and scaling challenges were obvious. Yet, according to Samani, the ecosystem lacked the decisive, wartime mentality needed to respond quickly.
This absence of urgency echoes historical examples like MySpace not platforms that disappeared overnight, but those that lost relevance as user engagement migrated toward smoother, faster alternatives.
Layer 2s: Solution or Fragmentation?
Ethereum’s response to scaling pressures came in the form of Layer 2 rollups such as Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base. These networks have succeeded in lowering transaction costs and improving throughput.
However, the modular approach has introduced new complications. User experience has become fragmented across multiple rollups, liquidity is increasingly siloed, and Layer 2s now contribute significantly less fee revenue back to Ethereum’s base layer.
As a result, the direct link between on-chain activity and ETH value accrual has weakened. There is a growing risk that Ethereum remains the most secure foundation in the ecosystem, while economic upside and brand loyalty shift upward to the networks built on top of it.
A Shift Toward Acceleration
Recognizing these challenges, the Ethereum Foundation has begun adjusting its long-standing philosophy. The previous emphasis on protocol ossification minimizing changes to preserve stability has softened in favor of faster development and performance-focused upgrades.
This shift became more visible with leadership changes, including the appointment of Tomasz Stańczak, founder of Nethermind, alongside Hsiao-Wei Wang as Executive Directors. The move signaled a renewed emphasis on engineering execution and operational urgency.
On the technical front, this new posture has materialized through the Pectra and Fusaka upgrades, alongside broader discussions around more aggressive scaling at the base layer.
One of the most ambitious proposals is the Beam Chain roadmap, championed by Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake. The plan envisions a substantial redesign of Ethereum’s consensus layer, targeting faster block times and near-instant finality bringing performance closer to that of integrated chains like Solana while preserving decentralization.
What’s at Stake
Upgrading a network securing hundreds of billions of dollars is inherently risky. But Ethereum’s leadership appears to have concluded that the danger of stagnation now outweighs the risks of bold execution.
The long-standing defense of “we still have TVL” offers comfort, but it looks backward. In competitive markets, liquidity follows opportunity, not loyalty.
Ethereum’s future remains viable but conditional. If core upgrades arrive on schedule and the Layer 2 ecosystem can present a more unified experience, Ethereum may solidify its role as the world’s primary settlement layer.
If not, it risks becoming infrastructure that is essential yet economically secondary important, but no longer dominant.
By 2030, markets may care less about who pioneered smart contracts and more about which platforms deliver invisible, frictionless utility. The coming years will determine whether Ethereum continues to define that standard—or merely supports it from beneath.
